PCN - SECURE PARKING SOLOUTIONS

Joity

@Umkomaas @Coupon-mad plus others.... please see link below to the full pack Secure parking have submitted. Hopefully better read then the wall of text above which is on the last 2 pages of the pack page 43 and 44. 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vl93hbQg7klLLdaF22S7_joyF4vTSzIG/view?usp=sharing 

1505grandad

My obvious observation without looking at anything else is:-

The parking event is May 2023 but all the photo evidence is date stamped 2021

Coupon-mad

You could also state that not entering a VRM is a major keying error at best, and the BPA CoP says that the AOS member had to offer to settle at £20 on appeal and did not. 

Joity

Hi All,
Please see below, this is what i am looking to respond with. Would be grateful for any feedback. 

In addition to the appeal already submitted and after looking at the evidence provided by Secure Parking, I as the registered keeper of the vehicle can make following observations:

1.     Photographs provided are historic from 2021 and do not represent the case as on the date of the event 18/05/2023.

 

·       The photographs dated 15/06/2021 provided by Secure Parking showing the screens where a customer is to input the VRM. Event took place on 18/05/2023. Almost 2 years apart.

 

·       The photographs dated 18/08/2021 provided by Secure Parking showing closeup photographs of the signs. Event took place on 18/05/2023. Over 1 and half years apart.

 

·       The photographs dated 12/10/2021 provided by Secure Parking are showing the outside road which is being classed as a car park. Event took place on 18/05/2023. Over 1 and half years apart.

 

 

2.     From the photographs provided by Secure Parking, once again it is not clear that the area is a car park. There are no parking bays. There are no boundaries to clearly state that a driver is entering a car park and not just a road. Which side is the parking? as there seems to be some sort of yellow lines on the left side as you enter the road but are not clear.

 

3.     The parking sign seen to the left of the road as you enter states 1 HOUR MAX STAY but the position of this sign is in an area left of some blue metal boundary (a closed off carpark not in use), to which you would think the car park in question here is actually the area to the left of the blue metal boundary. This car park is blocked off and not in use so therefore is this just sign that the car park owners forgot to take down. The driver did not enter this car park.

 

4.     The parking sign seen to the left of the road as you enter is non-prominent and unreadable, but the sign does state “1 HOUR MAX STAY” offering one-hour free parking, so there is no breach.

 

5.     Not entering a VRM can be seen as a major keying error at best, and the BPA CoP states that the AOS member should offer to settle at £20 on appeal. Which in this case was not offered. 

END

Also its mentioned in their response to the POPLA appeal the below:

"Based on the appeal it is easy to deduce the keeper was the driver at the time of contravention as well."

Can they say that? As the registered keeper of the car, how are they able to deduce the driver on the day? 
Should i highlight this in my response in any way? 

Fruitcake

You need to state that the operator has only provided historic images, but no proof that there were signs capable of forming a contract at the material time.
No proof that the vehicle was parked.
No proof the VRM keypad was in place and operational on the date in question.
No denial that this was a major keying error so the operator must agree with that point and therefore the appeal must be allowed.

You haven't shown us your PoPLA appeal so it is impossible to tell if you gave away or implied the driver's identity.

Coupon-mad

Remove this:

"In addition to the appeal already submitted and"

Fruitcake

The contract was for 24 months. The site commencement date is given as 2021/04/08, but the contract was signed by the client in March '21 and by the operator on 07/04/2021.
There is no specific contract start date, only a comment that it will be effective after the operator has signed the contract.
It is therefore reasonable to believe on the balance of probabilities that the contract became live on the 8th of April (American format) and therefore ended on the 7th of April 2023. This is supported by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 where ambiguity in contracts in force is deemed to be the one that is favourable to the consumer.
The operator has failed to prove they had a contract in force at the time of the alleged event. 

Joity

 Hi All, Please see updated version below. Let me have your feedback

After looking at the evidence provided by Secure Parking, I as the registered keeper of the vehicle can make following observations:

1.     Photographs provided are historic from 2021 and do not represent the case as on the date of the event 18/05/2023. There is no proof that there were signs capable of forming a contract at the material time.

 

·       The photographs dated 15/06/2021 provided by Secure Parking showing the screens where a customer is to input the VRM. Event took place on 18/05/2023. Almost 2 years apart.

 

·       The photographs dated 18/08/2021 provided by Secure Parking showing close photographs of the signs. Event took place on 18/05/2023. Over 1 and half years apart.

 

·       The photographs dated 12/10/2021 provided by Secure Parking are showing the outside road which is being classed as a car park. Event took place on 18/05/2023. Over 1 and half years apart.

 

2.     There is no evidence that the vehicle was parked. There are only images of the vehicle entering the road in question and exiting the road.

 

3.     There is no proof the VRM keypad was in place and operational on the date in question.

 

4.     From the evidence provided by Secure Parking, the operator has failed to prove they had a contract in force at the time of the alleged event. The agreement term was for 24 months.

 

a.     The site commencement date is given 2021/04/08.

b.     The contract was signed by the client on 31/3/21.

c.     The contract was signed by the operator on 07/04/2021.

d.     There is no specific contract start date, only a comment that it will be effective after the operator has signed the contract.

 

It is therefore reasonable to believe on the balance of probabilities that the contract became live on the 8th of April 2021 and therefore ended on the 7th of April 2023. This is supported by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 where ambiguity in contracts in force is deemed to be the one that is favourable to the consumer.

 

5.     From the photographs provided by Secure Parking, once again it is not clear that the area is a car park. There are no parking bays. There are no boundaries to clearly state that a driver is entering a car park and not just a road. Which side is the parking? as there seems to be some sort of yellow lines on the left side as you enter the road but are not clear.

 

6.     The parking sign seen to the left of the road as you enter the road states 1 HOUR MAX STAY but the position of this sign is in an area left of some blue metal boundary (a closed off carpark not in use), to which you would think the car park in question here is actually the area to the left of the blue metal boundary. This car park is blocked off and not in use so therefore, is this just sign that the car park owners forgot to take down? The driver did not enter this car park.

 

7.     The parking sign seen to the left of the road as you enter is non-prominent and unreadable, but the sign does state “1 HOUR MAX STAY” offering one-hour free parking, so there is no breach.

 

8.     Not entering a VRM can be seen as a major keying error at best, and the BPA CoP states that the AOS member should offer to settle at £20 on appeal. Which in this case was not offered.

 

9.     There is no denial that this was a major keying error so the operator must agree with that point and therefore the appeal must be allowed. 

 END

@Fruitcake
Link below page 36 shows the appeal made to Secure Parking. 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vl93hbQg7klLLdaF22S7_joyF4vTSzIG/view?usp=sharing 

Coupon-mad

Looks fine.  If you lose, ignore them.

Joity

Thank you all i will go ahead and respond with the above.